This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - no consensus - SimonP 23:32, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Pandeism[edit]

Original research and/or non-notable. Created by BD2412 and has been shoe-horned into a few dozen articles, creating the appearance of legitimacy.

How insulting! To say it was "shoe horned" into articles to create the "appearance" of legitimacy. What happened to assuming good faith? - Pioneer-12 15:58, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Try googling for pandeism -wikipedia. Of those <30 results, nearly all of them appear to be references to Wikipedia, or for example, this interesting entry:

  Since I'm a mixture of Pantheist and Deist, I woke up this morning with the brand new word Pandeist, in my mind. Too cool. Before breakfast I googled it to see if it was unique. There were 4 hits.... But Pandeism was used as a descriptor by folks describing others philosophical view, no one used it to describe themselves. As near as I can tell I'm the first to use it to describe my own outlook. [1]

  • Clarification: I would like to clarify that the above quote was not written by me, and bears no relation on my good-faith decision to contribute this article. The quote below was most definitely written by me, but is lacking their complete context. As Brian0918 concedes declares below, he "hadn't yet seen [my] replies when [he] made this page" < -- 8^D^gab 22:13, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)
    • It wasn't really a concession. I don't think your replies changed anything for me. --brian0918&#153; 00:53, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • We're on two different topics - I'm not defending the notability of the article, just defending myself against your implications that this was a hoax on my part - which you rushed to post on this vfd before you ever contacted me about the article. -- 8^D^gab 04:33, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)
      • For example, you wrote in this vfd the loaded phrase:

I'm not sure if the user who created the article, and its references in other articles, has been purposely deceptive, but according to him on his talk page:

• • Well now you can be sure. -- 8^D^gab 01:09, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)

"I assure you, this was not "original research" - I had a humanities class as an undergrad where the professor (Ramon Mendoza) spent several classes on the subject. The prof had himself written in his book (which was assigned for the class) that Giordano Bruno was truly a pandeist, not a pantheist, as he is popularly described. I tried googling the term myself, and have gotten few hits, but I've seen the term in print more than once. Someone else added the part about "spiritual pandeism", which I'd never heard of, but I have no way of discounting it, so I haven't touched it, except to edit for style."

to which JRM left this insightful reply:

"There are quite serious issues with verifiability here. Even if it is not your own original research, it might very well be your professor's. "Pandeism" is not in Merriam-Webster, the American Heritage Dictionary, Britannica, or the Catholic Encyclopedia (which does have pantheism). Either this concept does not exist at all outside of the humanities class you followed or it is only slightly less obscure. If not other sources can be provided than your assertion that Ramon Mendoza lectured on it, this article would be in serious danger of deletion if nominated—notwithstanding the fact that it is well-written, and notwithstanding that I don't doubt you created it in good faith. Your own remark that "someone else added the part about "spiritual pandeism", which I'd never heard of, but I have no way of discounting it, so I haven't touched it" clearly illustrates the problem: at present we have no reason to assume anyone will ever be able to discount anything on the topic."

--brian0918&#153;

---

• Delete - --brian0918&#153; 21:02, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Baleeted! User:Luigi30 (Υσηρ ταλκ ΛυηγηΛ) 21:07, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Yeah, brian said it all. AngryParsley 21:07, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• eteleD I made up a word too, can I have an article? Burgundavia 21:08, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Votes in unidentified foreign languages ought not count - "eleted" is apparently a term in some Eastern European language.[2]
• Delete unless verified, which JRM has appeared to have made a good-faith effort to do and turned up nothing. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:08, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd say the term is now "verified." --BD ^thimk 22:16, 2005 May 1 (UTC)
• Support, great picture. No reason not to redirect to pantheism, I guess, as it could even be a mishearing of pantheism. --SPUI (talk) 21:09, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I agree as to the redirect. -- 8^D^gab 07:22, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)
• Delete. Linuxbeak 21:11, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, but "creating the appearance of legitimacy" is unnecessarily harsh. Assume good faith. I for one do not believe the author is trying to hoax us, notwithstanding the fact that the topic seems unverifiable. Also see User talk:BD2412#Pandeism for BD2412's replies, which Brian's summaries leave out. JRM · Talk 21:12, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)
  • I hadn't yet seen his replies when I made this page. I also don't believe he is acting in bad faith, and didn't mean "creating the appearance of legitimacy" in the way you've interpreted it.. rather inadvertently creating the appearance... --brian0918&#153; 21:22, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    Maybe I was put on the wrong foot by "completely made-up" and "shoehorned". :-) JRM · Talk 22:11, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)

    I would never sully the good name of the shoe horn. --brian0918&#153; 22:13, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    The argument makes no sense in any event - I can't imagine that trying to create a hoax article would stick it in frequently-vandalised pages where people (like myself) would be looking for such things to call them out. -- 8^D^gab 00:41, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)

    I've seen users create more ridiculous hoax articles, stick them in various legitimate articles, and have that content remain for quite some time. (User:David 5000 is the example that comes to mind). Your article by comparison seems completely verifiable, though I'm not sure what the source of your information is. --brian0918&#153; 03:03, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    Well, I've not seen any serious Wikipedeans go for any such one-off pranks. I've initiated over 160 Wikipedia articles, including some labors of love such as Abstention doctrine, Joint tenancy, Smith (surname) and seminal court cases including Darcy v. Allein, Hadley v. Baxendale, Seminole Tribe v. Florida (seminal, indeed!), and Hans v. Louisiana. Two of my early articles (written at about the same time as this one) survived vfd - Tax protester, and Law review, and I have poured a lot of time into rescuing articles begun by others that were slated for deletion including Landmark decision, Magic sword, and Pizza delivery. and I challenge you to find anything, anything that I've contributed to any article I've worked on (including this one) that suggests that I would disrespect Wikipedia so much as to try to pass off an article that I didn't have reason to believe belonged here. -- 8^D^gab 08:27, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)

After rewrite, verifiability is not in question, the dubious importance of the sources notwithstanding. Reduces to a notability debate, on which I do not vote in principle. No vote. JRM · Talk 14:12, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)

• Delete. It's somebody's original research, to be certain. Kelly Martin 21:13, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, it's not mine. I made a good faith effort to add an article which I believed to be encyclopedic based on my introduction to the topic by a published professor of humanities - and I'm still not convinced it was his original research. -- 8^D^gab 04:26, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)
• Withhold my vote until it's clear whether or not this can be verified, since I'd like to assume good faith here. My first reaction was "Fraud! Fraud! We've uncovered a fraud" but I may have jumped to conclusions. I suspect I will end up voting to delete this, however. — Trilobite (Talk) 21:16, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete after confirmation from Wikipedia's resident professional philosopher that the term either doesn't exist or is too obscure for inclusion. — Trilobite (Talk) 21:48, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Withdraw my vote again. Having followed the debate I'm in two minds about whether or not this should be deleted. — Trilobite (Talk) 03:01, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 03:01, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I believe this is a legitimate term - of which I am not the author, merely the reporter. If it qualifies for deletion, it is not as a "hoax" but for apparent lack of notability. I would suggest (as I did on my talk page, but which was not transcribed here by the nominators) that "if you have any suspicions about the possibility that I would put 'nonsense' in Wikipedia, please look to my contributions" - which include over a hundred articles, and 4,000 edits. -- 8^D^gab 21:23, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)
• Delete. Postdlf 21:31, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I've found it in no book on religion or the philosophy of religion (including Michael P. Levine's authoratitive work Pamtheism). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:38, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Pamtheism gets only 10 google hits; Pamtheism + Levine gets none. Maybe the book is a hoax. -- 8^D^gab 21:53, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)-- 8^D^gab 07:24, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)
    • Or maybe he meant Pantheism..... --brian0918&#153; 21:55, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • True... after all people do make mistakes... -- 8^D^gab 21:57, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)
        • Or maybe he meant Spamtheism.... --brian0918&#153; 22:07, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • I'll introduce you all to Pam some time, and you can make up your own minds. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:24, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research. -Willmcw 21:58, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC) see below.
• Keep. I found one external mention of pandeism. [3] The article pandeism should redirect to pantheism. Adraeus 00:32, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • One reference to the word mentioned twice on the entire internet? It sounds like he just made it up on the spot. High schools that have their own websites are getting their articles deleted, but this should remain? If it was just a redirect, that would be alright, but to have an entire article based on one line of text from the internet seems a bit odd. --brian0918&#153; 00:37, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Sounds like Adraeus just made it up? Or like the priest pastor in the article just made it up? In any event, I agree with your statement that "If it was just a redirect, that would be alright" -is that a change of vote? -- 8^D^gab 07:30, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)
      • Pandeism is nothing more than a more precise term for pantheism. There exists no publicly available academically credible evidence to suggest anything close to what's written in the pandeism article. As far as we're concerned, what's written in pandeism is original research and the article should be deleted; however, the pandeism article should redirect to pantheism. Adraeus 08:07, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't know that this really helps, since the reference itself does not say anything specific about the meaning of pandeism to distinguish it from pantheism (although it certainly proves the point that some people use the one when they mean the other). Searching for a few related terms (e.g. pandeist/pandeistic) or searching for these terms written with a hyphen or as two words increases the hit count. -- 8^D^gab 01:08, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)
  • Another external reference. Also, the Albuquerque Journal for Saturday, November 11, 1995, B-10 quotes a Vietnam vet-turned trappist monk who "describes his current spiritual position as "'pandeism' or 'pan-en-deism,' something very close to the Native American concept of the all- pervading Great Spirit..." - which is so interesting in light of the fact that that was around the same time that I first heard the term used - a few thousand miles from Albuquerque - so maybe it was just in vogue for a little while then. -- 8^D^gab 01:15, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)
    • The word panendeism appears to be common, while pandeism is almost non-existant. --brian0918&#153; 01:21, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • The point, of course, is that the speaker (who presumably knew something about religion) used the term "pandeism" in the same context; and pandeism is no more of a neologism than panendeism, which you'll note has no more basis for describing its origin than pandeism - the panendeism article refers to the origin of panentheism to demonstrate the origin of the term. Furthermore enough of the google hits on panendeism are in blogs, wiki mirrors (even with -wikipedia) that the number of original sources is not much more than pandeism produces, when you look at alternative spellings/usages. By this logic, panendeism is no more encyclopedic, and should also be removed. Also, I concur that pandeism is "almost non-existant", and I mentioned my own concerns about that on in our discussion on my talk page. But if I look for a truly "made-up" term like "pandionism" or "pandeostic", I get zero google hits. -- 8^D^gab 01:34, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)
• Keep Pastinakel 00:38, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, original research. Megan1967 01:54, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Another external source - I mentioned this one - Meta-Pintores Uno - on my talk page, but the nominators discounted it because it was a translation - but look at the words being translated for verification. In the original Spanish:

Orlando Cordero logra dar con la imago de la Metapoesía como si fuera hierofante, amanuense y taumaturgo. Su visión es pandeísta y debió ser panteísta. Para lograr panteizar el cuadro hace falta Cristo como insignia, sendero y faro. El pandeísmo es impersonal como el presente cuadro en que hombre, naturaleza y palabra se integran, mientras que el panteísmo es personal, vivencia crística de todos los días. Aquí hay materialidad sígnica para la ejecución de otros cuadros. Por el momento, disfrutamos con deleite la mirada cómplice, lúdica y heurística de ese músico ausente y vemos a Orlando Cordero sonriéndose de su ocurrencia creativa, sentado en el banco como si no hubiera pasado nada. ¡Amén!

And translated into English:

Orlando Cordero manages to get the imago of Meta-Poetry like if he were hierophant, amanuensis, and thaumaturge. His vision is pandeist, and it had to be pantheist. In order to get a pantheist painting, it is necessary to have Christ as pennant, footpath, and lighthouse. Pandeism is impersonal like in the present canvas, in which man, nature and word integrate themselves; whereas pantheism is a personal Christ-like experience of every day. Here there is signal-like materiality for the making of other paintings. At the moment, we enjoy with delight the accomplice, playful and heuristic stare of that absent musician, and see Orlando Cordero smiling at his creative occurrence, seated in the bench like if nothing has happened. Amen!

Apparently I've "made up" a neologism in two languages! -- 8^D^gab 02:52, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)

• Analysis of the "extensiveness" of the article

You've presented all of these "sources" (one-word references in a small handful of pages), but have yet to source any of the information you put in pandeism. You were able to write an article that extensive from memories of class lectures a decade ago? (or did you keep your notes) --brian0918&#153; 03:06, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• NOTE - I have refactored the lengthy, crossed-out passage that occupied this space in the Pandeism VfD, because it is nothing more than my own verbose, point-by-point defense of the original article, which was rewritten out of existence as of 13:28, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC). That portion of the discussion is preserved in the history of this page, and I have also preserved the discussion here. --BD ^thimk 04:14, 2005 May 3 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:43, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC) And still not notable. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:31, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, neologism, original research. --Angr/_comhrá 06:09, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• *Two external sources cited below - one from 1997, and the other from 1995 - disprove the above accusation. -- 8^D^gab 01:56, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)
• Redirect to pantheism. Two external sources cited below - one from a priest pastor in 1997, and the other from a trappist monk in 1995 - disprove the "original research" accusation. I agree that the term is probably non-notable, as the term has been most frequently used in blogs or posts as an erroneous reference to pantheism - the article is simply a non-notably uncommon use of a term that is more commonly used as an erroneous reference to a word of similar construction. -- 8^D^gab 07:20, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)
  • Keep. I have found conclusive evidence of the use of the term "Pandeism" dating back to 1833 [4], when it was used by Godfrey Higgins, a follower of John Toland, the creator of pantheism.[5]. The term is used in a book written by Higgins called the Anacalypsis. -- 8^D^gab 11:42, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)
    • That one paragraph is not the source for your article. It remains original research and should be deleted or turned into a redirect. (we don't have an article on duck tape despite that being the original name for duct tape (and being used 100 years after your reference), nor do we have an article on zyxst, which is an old English word for sixth -- simply showing that it was used once in the past doesn't make it valid today). --brian0918&#153; 11:58, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Brian0918, I think, with all due respect, that your point was well-enough made without making up "zyxst", which, in case you really don't know, could not have been what you claim it "was"... When questioning the legitimacy of something, you do nothing to support your position by using illegitimate rubbish. It was cute tho. :-p You'll notice, also, that duck tape does actually exist, albeit only as a redirect to duct tape...I propose we make zyxst a redirect to User:Brian0918. :-p Tomer ^TALK 17:47, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect: I came upon this discussion as a matter of happenstance, and while I think there's probably something to it, at this point it is insupportable from authoritative sources. I honestly believe there's noteworthy material here, in disagreement with Jayjg, whose opinion I hold in the highest regard, but too much of the article, as non "original research" as its primary contributor might protest the subject matter may be, I see too little evidence to contradict that contention. As I did with User:Sirkumsize, and his (IMHO) blatherskyte about "Circumcision and Antisemitism", I would recommend that the author of the bulk of the content here first publish a paper about the noteworthiness of the concept and its acceptability as distinct from other nebulous quasi-monotheistic concepts, in a peer-reviewed journal, and then come back after it's been accepted, and then, and only then, quote him/herself on the worthiness of the inclusion of this article. For now, however, I see this as little more than a questionably noteworthy sidebar in the articles on pantheism and/or panentheism. Tomer ^TALK 07:37, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Now that is an intriguing idea... -- 8^D^gab 09:10, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)
    • I'm changing my vote to KEEP, but with a very strong caveat: the article still needs a LOT of work, even after your rewrite, BD2412. I say KEEP, but in its current state, it is a poster-child for ((cleanup)). -t Tomer ^TALK 17:42, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Of course, the current content of the article couldn't be used for these sidebars. They would have to be based on these few sources that have been found so far. Otherwise, it would remain original research --brian0918&#153; 10:58, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I have no opposition to that. -- 8^D^gab 11:02, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)
• oppose redirection to pantheism. This would suggest the terms are equivalent. a complete rewrite is required to make the article into a piece on the term's meagre attestation. keep, it has been satisfactorily rewritten. dab (ᛏ) 13:44, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep--Cyberjunkie 10:25, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• delete or redirect to pantheism, making a small note on that article about the distinction between the two. - UtherSRG 11:29, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Article re-written
• PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that as of the time of this posting, the Pandeism article has been completely rewritten to reflect the information available in the sources that have been identified to this point, and the main point of the article is now a discussion of the 1833 usage of this term, in the work of historian Godfrey Higgens. All votes cast before this time refer to an article that no longer exists. -- 8^D^gab 13:28, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)
  • The article should exist because the word was used once back in 1833? At most it should get a short blurb in another article, as your sources contradict (they all think they invented the word, and use it in different ways). If we're going to keep this article, then we have to keep every article on a word/phrase used only by a small group of friends (I've seen several of these speedied). --brian0918&#153; 13:45, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• External Links

In order to clarify the discussion of external sources, I am listing what has been found (aside from the newspaper article) here. -- 8^D^gab 11:33, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)

• Article by a pastor, apparently rejecting pandeism; relevant text reads:

God Is Not the Author of Sin

All the actions of created intelligences are not merely the actions of God. He has created a universe of beings which are said to act freely and responsibly as the proximate causes of their own moral actions. When individuals do evil things it is not God the Creator and Preserver acting. If God was the proximate cause of every act it would make all events to be "God in motion". That is nothing less than pantheism, or more exactly, pandeism. The Creator is distinct from his creation. The reality of secondary causes is what separates Christian theism from pandeism.

• ANALYSIS: frankly, I'm not sure what he's saying pandeism is - maybe he's equating it with pantheism, which would not be incorrect if he's only talking about the here-and-now - but he seems to me to be discrediting the idea of a God who was the proximate cause, and is now no longer distinct from his creation

• Meta-Pintores Uno (translation from Spanish of a description of an artist's work; relevant text reads:

His vision is pandeist, and it had to be pantheist. In order to get a pantheist painting, it is necessary to have Christ as pennant, footpath, and lighthouse. Pandeism is impersonal like in the present canvas, in which man, nature and word integrate themselves; whereas pantheism is a personal Christ-like experience of every day. Here there is signal-like materiality for the making of other paintings.

• ANALYSIS: seems to be saying that the artist succeeded in invoking pandeism, when he should have been invoking patheism - clearly states that pandeism is impersonal, while pantheism is personal, like a revelation - but both should be impersonal

• Faithless.org; relevant text reads:

Pandeism was used as a descriptor by folks describing others philosophical view, no one used it to describe themselves.

• ANALYSIS: this is the one at the top of the vfd, where the kid claims to have come up with the term... but he didn't, even he got "4 hits". More importantly, he correctly identifies a pandeist as "a mixture of Pantheist and Deist". Furthermore, there's nothing inconsistent about a philosophy existing and yet not being followed by anyone
  • Well, if it's not followed by anyone, then it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. --brian0918&#153; 11:42, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • (Taken aback) - you mean we should get rid of all those ancient religions? No one really worships Hermes anymore... -- 8^D^gab 13:40, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)
      • Scratch the above comment, because guess what? We know there are people who are pandeists, either because that's the name they feel is appropriate for their particular set of beliefs, or because they have a set of beliefs and don't know the name of it, but hey, it's pandeism. I don't know why we'd want to exclude their religion from Wikipedia and keep all others. -- 8^D^gab 18:44, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)

• UNIVERSIST GLOBAL MEETING Atheism without the Agnostic Prefix, UNIVERSIST GLOBAL MEETING Rational Religious Philosophy, [6]; relevant text reads:

I've seen some forms of deism pop up called pandeism and panendeism...

If the superbeing had not revealed itself it would be Pandeism. I have seen nothing that suggests to me that anything that appears supernatural or ...

What is Pandeism? (16 replies)

• ANALYSIS: here's the rub - obviously there's some kind of fun discussion of pandeism going on in these pages, but we don't have the password to get on this website, so we ignore them and pretend they don't exist - even though they may be having a dead-on description of the very topic we're trying to delete
  • And they may very well be using your Wikipedia article (or some mirror of it) as the complete source of their discussion, as could any of these other forum posters. --brian0918&#153; 11:42, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Debate and Discource from The Universal Church Triumphant of the Apathetic Agnostic - What is your point?; relevant text reads:

In your original Talk Back 52, you showed us little insight into your beliefs, which, at last count, includes a rather vague god-concept, reincarnation, pandeism and Intelligent Design.

• ANALYSIS: so this is a response to someone else's previous discussion of matters including pandeism, which does not itself come up for whatever reason, but there's nothing about vague god-concept, reincarnation, or intelligent design that is inconsistent with pandeism - indeed pandeism presuposes intelligent design, and it's hard to explain a god who ceases to exist as god

• ANACALYPSIS - written by one Godfrey Higgins in 1833 (warning, this page gives mad pop-ups); relevant text reads:

PANDION, PANDEUS, PANDÆA—PANDEISM—GYPSIES—RECAPITULATION...

When I consider all the circumstances detailed above respecting the Pans, I cannot help believing that, under the mythos, a doctrine or history of a sect is concealed. Cunti, the wife of Pandu (du or God, Pan), wife of the generative power, mother of the Pandavas or devas, daughter of Sura or Syra the Sun—Pandæa only daughter of Cristna or the Sun—Pandion, who had by Medea a son called Medus, the king of the Medes, who had a cousin, the famous Perseus—surely all this is very mythological—an historical parable !

I think Pandeism was system; … We have seen that though Cristna was said to have left many sons, he left his immense empire, which extended from the sources of the Indus to Cape Comorin, (for we find a Regio Pandionis near this point,) to his daughter Pandæa; but, from finding the icon of Buddha so constantly shaded with the nine Cobras, &c., I am induced to think that this Pandeism was a doctrine, which had been received both by Buddhists and Brahmins.

• ANALYSIS: here the word is being used in 1833 to describe a supposed doctrine... but wait, Godfrey Higgins was "was a 'Chosen Chief' of the Order of Druids supposedly founded by John Toland in 1717" [7]... and John Toland was the creator of Pantheism! Furthermore, Higgins was writing when deism was all the rage. So here we have a follower of Toland's - who certainly knew of both Deism and Pantheism - and who had a weird sense of humor (he was apparently "largely influenced by ideas of phallic worship", see above reference) - using the term pandeism in a cryptic description of an empire in India that we know to be fictional.

• Are Atheists serious? messageboard; relevant text reads:

Tiny what is the difference between pantheism and pandeism?

Well, I don't know if the term has been previously coined, but by component, I would suspect it works along the following lines. Theism=belief in a God that uses divine revelation (aka God touching your heart, miracles, etc), whereasm Deism=no divine revelation. Pan as a prefix generally means global (or universal), so pantheism is typically the idea that god is everywhere as a part of the universe. I suppose one could say that pantheism would still allow revelation, whereas pandeism would not, but previously I have not seen such a distinction.

• ANALYSIS: right about theism; right about deism (sort of); pantheism description is very iffy - there would be no difference between the current state of a pantheist universe and a pandeist universe, under the definition in the article.
  • You've labeled all of these online sources as being wrong about the definition of pandeism.... maybe you're the one who's wrong about it? --brian0918&#153; 11:42, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • In light of that possibility, I have now completely rewritten the article. -- 8^D^gab 13:54, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)

• In the Hall of Maat; relevant text reads:

Pandeism (deist as in the US founding fathers) is the same concept only that god is now silent and non-interfering in any way. ...

• ANALYSIS: aside from the Higgins reference, this is the most intriguing one - it seems to be hit the nail right on the for the few words it has... but, once again, we can't get into the website without a password!!! And this is particularly annoying here because this site has tons of forums on things like "Ancient History and Archaeology", "Culture and Anthropology", "Egypt: Gods, Myths, and Religions", "The Maritime Foundations of Andean Civilization: An Evolving Hypothesis." Oh! To be denied the sweet mysteries of the universe for lack of password!
  • Yes, and it likely used your article as its source. --brian0918&#153; 11:42, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Impossible!!! The above source predates the posting of my article. -- 8^D^gab 13:54, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)

• And finally also from faithless.org:

Deism: Belief in an impersonal god as revealed by nature and reason.

Pandeism: Belief that this impersonal god is the universe all around us.

Potdeism: Duuuude, God is revealed by this great weed, man. Here...

• ANALYSIS: dead on accurate.
  • Yes, and it likely used your article as its source. You're seriously considering forum posts as valid sources? --brian0918&#153; 11:42, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I am to the extent that they demonstrate that term is known for the meaning ascribed in the article. Given that the last post was April 1, 2005, I don't put it outside the realm of all possibility that the user wrote based on the wikipedia article... but not everyone has read all of wikipedia, so there's an equal possibility that this person learned of the term elsewhere. Besides, that one's funny. -- 8^D^gab 11:58, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)

• Note on Spinoza
• This is from a forum on "THE MATRIX AND BIBLICAL UNITARIAN UNIVERSALISM"; relevant text reads:

God is inmanent, trascendent and holistic. That is Pantheism, not Pandeism. Pantheism is right, because we are speaking about a personal, individual, trascendent God. Pandeism (like Spinoza's) is not right, due to the fact that is not a trascendent God, a God beyond Creation.

• ANALYSIS: correctly identifies Spinoza as a pandeist rather than a pantheist (very impressive!!!) - but seems to mischaracterize pantheism as panentheism

• Christian Origins of U.S.; relevant text reads:

The labeling of Spinoza's philosophy as "pantheism" by the Church was meant more as an invective and indictment than a true analysis of his writings. It was really a variant of Deism -- a "pandeism," if I may. Theism, however, posits something very different. Theism believes that nature was not God, but created BY God. That God is a completely independent sentient and cognitive Being, and that God interacts with his "children" on a personal level (e.g., The Bible).

• ANALYSIS: another person correctly identifying Spinoza as a pandeist rather than a pantheist and correctly describing pandeism as a contrast to theism... but he also seems to think that he's just invented the term, and perhaps that it doesn't apply to a universe created by God... but he doesn't come straight out and say that, so this could be pandeism as the article describes...
  • Yes, but it is not a source for the article. None of these are. There are no sources for the current article. --brian0918&#153; 11:42, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, they are now. -- 8^D^gab 13:42, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)

Two people independently noted that Spinoza was really a pandeist and not a pantheist (which is correct under the discussion of the term originally presented in the article). That was never in my article. How do you explain that?-- 8^D^gab 12:00, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)

• (still waiting for an explanation) -- 8^D^gab 17:15, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)

• Pandeism is a Pokemon!!!

I should have put this here in the first place, but see User talk:BD2412#Pandeism vfd for my comments on this. Executive summary: these links may establish that the word pandeism exists and has been used by multiple people, but none seem to document the concept in the article in a way we would call a "source", except through obvious extrapolation of the etymology. It may sound odd to call a word that has been used centuries ago a neologism, but that's what it looks like to me. Pandeism as a concept is too ephemeral. We could consider adding a short paragraph to pantheism describing this situation and add a redir—that's not really merge and redirect of the current article as I see it, though, so no change of vote. JRM · Talk 12:11, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)

I think it's okay to keep pandeism as a separate article, on the term, obscure as it is. The "recent use" section must be scrutinized for notability, still. I agree it does smell of a "vanity article" similar to the Maltheism case. dab (ᛏ) 13:50, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But we don't have articles on every other obscure word used in a book back in the 1800s. The article as it is seems pretty ridiculous, made up entirely of quotes from "sources" (internet message boards are valid sources?). It's not at all coherent, and seems to be pulling at strings to make the word appear legitimate. I'd still recommend deleting, and possibly replacing with a redirect to pantheism. Articles usually exist as their own entities, based on a collection of other sources. This is just a list of those sources. There are 42 sources for KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN on google. Therefore, it should have its own article? --brian0918&#153; 13:56, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your splitting hairs now. We can't have an article on a word that is obscure enough to not appear on google, even if it was used by a notable historian to describe a belief system that stretched from Greece to India? But we can't use the presence of the word on internet posts to prove that at least some people now ascribe a meaning to it, even if there are variations in the meaning? Which is it? -- 8^D^gab 14:03, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)

Wait, how did this belief system "from Greece to India" become real? He made it up. 42 people have used that long KHAN word above. Twice as many sources for the word on internet message boards as yours has. The point is that internet message boards are not valid sources. --brian0918&#153; 14:12, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hey, Higgins was a religious historian. Maybe he knew something you don't. Anyway, the KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN argument is a red herring, and you know it. There's an article on Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan that the info could go in. In any event, I believe that there is a source-in-print to be found that shows that the use of the term which I described in my original article is valid. -- 8^D^gab 14:20, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)

• Putting all this aside, would you agree that there should be articles on Godfrey Higgins, and on the Anacalypsis? -- 8^D^gab 14:31, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)

Re: Godfrey Higgins. If he's done something significant outside of pandeism, yes. Otherwise, his name should probably just be a redirect to that article.

Re: Anacalypsis. If it's a term with a distinct meaning and one used by more then one person, then yes. Otherwise, it should just be mentioned in the article of the person who used it.

- Pioneer-12 17:31, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Higgins was apparently some kind of druid chieftain; turned down a seat in Parliament; was obsessed with phallic religions; and wrote a bunch of honking thick books on religion and history, full of cryptic references which could only be understood by his masonic brothers (pandeism might be one of them, but no proof, so nothing in the article). The Anacalypsis was Higgins last honking thick book - a two volume set, actually, coming in at 1400 pages (on good size-paper), purporting to describe pretty much the history of religion to that point, sans Christianity (because he died before he got to write about it). -- 8^D^gab 18:19, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)

If he wrote a bunch of honking thick books on religion and history, that qualifies as significant. An author with multiple published books is significant. The Anacalypsis, though, should probably just be discussed in the article on Higgins. - Pioneer-12 21:21, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I started an article on the book, but it could certainly merge and redirect.

---

Strong Keep - Yet another article put up for deletion because a couple people didn't understand it. Perhaps in the future people will learn to ask questions before making snap judgements.

Let's harass some more researchers. That really helps improve the encyclopedia. - Pioneer-12 16:04, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

-- 8^D^gab 16:52, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)*Look at me, I can change header titles

• Have you actually read any of this page? (well, previous forms of the VFD, before BD2412 decided to take it over and skew it every which way to hell) I'm done caring about this article. I'm an extreme inclusionist, but even this I consider nonsense (considering that schools which have their own websites are having their articles deleted). About the only thing this word should have is a short dictionary definition which simply states the etymology. Somebody in 1833 used the word a couple times, so it gets its own article now? How about the various other -theisms that have been deleted as crackpot nonsense despite them having entire sites devoted to their... nonsense? The only modern scholar on this subject appears to be sk8terboi6969. --brian0918&#153; 20:10, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I just had a soda... hold that thought while I go use the facilities. -- 8^D^gab 20:27, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)
    • Much better. Now lets straighten things out. The article I had originally was fine, and so were all the references that you pulled out of the various articles where they belonged. This was not an article about a high school student and the album his garage band hopes to put out. This was not an article about a pokemon who can shoot lightning out his ass four times a day. This was an article about a macro theory of God. And not one of those stupid "God has orange hair and likes Chumbawumba and wants everyone to live in an eight-sided house" type articles. (Compare Theanism). This was a basic, fundamental theory of the way the universe works on the same scale as pantheism, or panendeism, or omnitheism, or maltheism, or theism period. People have believed this, Spinoza's basic concept is what was there, just without a name. There are people out there posting on the internet right now who believe that this is the fundamental mechanism by which the universe works, and who the hell is anyone here to tell them that their beliefs have no place in the storehouse of human knowledge? Even if my philosophy professor was the first person in the world to come up with this idea (pretending for the moment that neither Spinoza nor Giordano Bruno had approached it), it's still one of only a handful of possible macro theories of the universe, and that should've counted for something. Now, the article that this has been made into, that's still interesting - it's a piece of history and a part of the human storehouse of usable knowledge... but the article that was sacrificed for it, well that filled a gap in the spectrum of theology. So now the gap remains. -- 8^D^gab 20:49, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)
      • An article was sacrificed? Oh, you must be referring to an early version of the page. Yes, there seems to be some good information in there. There must be some way to work that information back in using a nonbiased method. What to do about minority relious beliefs that have little scholarly research done on them? Surely if there are posters on the internet who believe in this then they must be getting their beliefs from somewhere. Perhaps if you talk to them you can find more written sources to work from. - Pioneer-12 21:10, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • Ah, the first thing is to track down Ramon Mendoza. My thesis advisor used to work out of the same floor, perhaps that's where to start. There are sources in print, and they will come to light, and the spectrum will be made whole again. -- 8^D^gab 21:15, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)
      • No, the article was not fine, because it wasn't based on anything verifiable except your own conjecture. If I see this mentioned in another article again, I probably won't hesitate to remove it. You've already thoroughly POV'd the current version. For one example: "Higgens' choice of this term is curious for several reasons"... please point out where you got this information from (let the record show that the witness is pointing at himself). --brian0918&#153; 21:49, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • --Brian0918, you had a responsibility as an administrator to handle this in a mature and evenhanded manner, and instead you have chosen to jump to unfounded conclusions and slander my name throughout this vfd and throughout Wikipedia by posting false statements against me in edit summaries, becuase you knew that was the one place they couldn't be withdrawn later. You are an administrator, a position of power which bestows upon you a fiduciary duty to act with care and candor, a duty which required you to come ask me about this article before you backed yourself into this corner by throwing out unfounded accusation. Now you seem to think the only way you can prove you're still a man is to keep attacking me. I'm basically still new here, but before you even thought to come and talk to me about this like a man, you started slandering my name all over Wikipedia, posting false statements against me in the edit summaries, when, if you had explained your concerns to me like a man, I would have responded accordingly. I have twice requested that you take a simple action to ameliorate the damage you have done in the edit summaries by simply posting follow-ups withdrawing the unfounded charges, and you have ignored that request, just as you ignore anything that would pierce the blinders you have erected against any point of legitimacy of this article. You never responded to the two seperate google hits, one from a pastor, the other from an agnostic, seperately and individually pointing out the Spinoza is properly classified as a pandeist. You never responded to the information from the Hall of Maat website, a website of historians and philosophers, which had material echoing the material in the article, even though they predated the article itself. You never responded to the fact that both newspaper and internet sources show the term in use in the mid-1990s, at exactly the time when I learned of it in a classroom. Your little parlor trick of saying "(let the record show that the witness is pointing at himself)" is nothing but another smooth attack against me. It's a straw man, a tool of someone who has no force of truth to put on the table. If the article is POV, fix it... but you won't fix, you'll just attack. I didn't come here to make enemies. I want to put this behind me, but every time I try to defend my work, you launch a personal attack. Can we please not continue on this unnecessary path. -- 8^D^gab 23:10, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)
          • Don't worry, BD2412; I think Brian0918 ultimately had the best interests of the encyclopedia at heart. However, it seems his actions were, intentionally or not, quite antagonistic and overly hasty. It seems he did not take the proper steps to discuss things with you and and then listen to what you were saying. BD2412, your actions have shown that you are willing to be flexible and compromise and listen to other people's objections and concerns. As long as you maintain a level head you will come out vindicated in the end. Brian, _I_ wrote the line "Higgens' choice of this term is curious for several reasons". It is a reasonable statement based on the existent facts. We are allowed to state the obvious without referencing every single line. Jeez, 99% of entries don't get this kind of nitpicky scrutiny. Try to be fair and reasonable in your criticism and Don't be a dick. - Pioneer-12 03:52, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
          • This is complete idiocy. My edit summaries were made such that people wouldn't immediately revert my edits (since the edits were made to oft-vandalized articles). Sure, I didn't have the information I have now (that you are not a vandal, but seem to be pretty unstable very emotional on the matter). Where exactly is the slander in "removed pandeism stuff. it's all original "research" by User:BD2412 and stuck by him into numerous articles. <20 non-wiki hits on google. (he admits having no sources). please help!)". These are not unfounded statements. At the time, you did indeed say you had no sources, that you wrote it based solely on your own memories of lectures a decade ago. Because you claim to have found legitimate sources now doesn't mean I have to go back through and make new edit summaries. That's what the timestamp is there for. If I wanted to slander you, I would've said your father was a hamster, and your mother smelt of elderberries! Now please stop pulling at strings, stop deleting conversations on my talk page, stop spamming my and other users' talk pages (they're complaining to me), and stop rewriting the vfd as if (IMO) it's your own little puppet that you can manipulate (eg: sticking your vote at the very top of the page, and only posting "notices of votes made before the rewrite" under the delete votes?!?! -- the latter was pointed out to me by a couple other Wikipedians, who found it rather odd). This is turning into "one huge trainwreck" (to quote yet other Wikipedians). --brian0918&#153; 04:33, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
            • I was sincere when I said I did not want to continue on this unecessary path, but this reaction is exactly what I feared. If you are unable to see the slander in accusing me of sticking original research into numerous articles - and are unable to see that you should have discussed the matter with me before engaging in such rash actions, then I don't know how to reach you. I would have been happy to remove the material that offended if you had just asked, instead of bullheadedly assuming I was some kind of criminal and setting me up to look like one with both the edit summaries and the initial way that you laid out this vfd, making it appear as if I had claimed to invent the term with a quote you pulled off some blog. Either you did that intentionally, or you were incredibly insensitive as to how it appeared. With respect to "deleting conversations" on your talk page (which makes it sound like I'm vandalizing your page, another poor - or malicious - choice of words), I've only removed comments that I posted there, and which you ignored. Put them back, if you like. You have the technology. As for "spamming" people's pages, I'm not selling penis mightiers or Christian debt relief - it's ok for you to try to persuade people to vote to delete, but not ok for me to seek to persuade them otherwise? I sought to keep vfd voters apprised of circumstances which would reasonably relevant to their votes on this page. I first sought to clarify that this was not original research on my part, and if the article should be deleted, it should be for lack of notability. I then noticed that many uses of the term suggested a redirect, and suggested that as an alternative. When I discovered the newspaper article, I felt that would be an important factor for people to consider, and when I found the Higgins book, I felt that was of absolute importance. Finally, when the article was completely rewritten, so that the entire focus was shifted towards verifiably sourced material, I felt that might be particularly important to people who had initially voted based on a belief that the article contained original research (which clearly it has none of now, as a lot of people have worked to clean it up). With respect to the charge that I abused the vfd, I never moved or erased a single word written by another person. It is, I believe customary to respond to someone's posts immediately below that post, which is exactly what I did at the top of the page. Regarding my noting the pre-rewrite votes only on those who voted to delete, that was impulsive and wrong of me, and I apologize for it. However, it was certainly no worse than your impulsive use of harsh terms against me in 20-some edit summaries, which , unlike the notes of prewrite votes were both a direct attack, and provide no adequate remedy to repair the damage that your haste has caused to my reputation, or the hurt that you have caused me personally. You acted badly; I responded badly. We're both worse off for it, and I'm sorry. Lets end it. -- 8^D^gab 05:30, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)
              • It might be better for you to point out the harsh words and slander in my edit summary. Since you linked to slander, you must know what the word entails. Please list the harsh words and slander in my edit summary. For the 3000th time, you said the article was your own original content, you had no sources at the time, and you did in fact place (synonym: stick) references to the article into various articles. This page is now officially a train wreck:
                • I apologize for having contributed the initial article without having done sufficient research to determine if it was in wide enough use to be a notable contribution. Had you asked me at the time of our initial contact, I would have immediately investigated to find out how common its use actually was. I would have concluded that it was, in fact, not notable, and would have immediately removed all the references and changed the article to a redirect to pandeism, with a note that people occasionally say pandeism when they mean pantheism. I apologize for having over-reacted in my posting of material on the vfd in an support of this not being original research, and I apologize for posting so many updates of the situation on user pages. I felt as though the vfd was initially framed as a personal attack against me, rather than addressing the content of the article, and I was excessively fervent in defending myself. I apologize for only posting notices that the page had been rewritten under votes to delete. That was impulsive and immature of me. I did not come to Wikipedia to make enemies, and I do not want to continue down this path. Can we please end this trading of derisions and accusations now. -- 8^D^gab 15:53, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)
                  • I respect your objection to my use of header titles, and will remove them. -- 8^D^gab 16:56, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)

....and more votes[edit]

• Hesitant keep - So it's been re-invented by several people with different meanings? That's fine. Just put a little blurb about it in the pantheism article then, with the various meanings. - Omegatron 18:22, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. Wikipedia's job isn't to help establish new concepts, only to document pre-exsiting ones. --Gmaxwell 21:35, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Pandeism is attested from 1833 being originally coined — supposedly — by Godfrey Higgins [8] in his 2-volume 1,432 page writing, Anacalypsis. Adraeus 23:46, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I've read that article as it stood when I voted. Being mentioned in a single old book does not usually qualify something as being sufficently notable for an encyclopedia article. I really dislike that people are demanding that I justify my vote.--Gmaxwell 18:59, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: By the way, there's a Godfrey Higgins School of Medicine in Harare, Zimbabwe (formerly Rhodesia). Adraeus 23:50, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Could be connected... I doubt it's that common a name. -- 8^D^gab 00:22, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)
• Keep encyclopedic Klonimus 04:07, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. 1833 mention is non-notable. The extremely rare subsequent uses are even less notable. Anything that requires this much effort to try to establish veracity and notability is clearly non-notable. Quale 04:18, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. User:Brian0918 was correct to bring this article to the community's attention. Because of its apparent lack of sourcing and other reasons it was a valid subject for a VfD. However, the VfD process has brought the article's deficiencies to the attention of the original editor, 8^D, who has since put in a good effort to re-write the article on a firm basis. As it stands I think that this article is not objectionable and contains worthwhile scholarship. This VfD has gone well and everyone involved deserves thanks for nudging the process along. Cheers, -Willmcw 05:05, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • I appreciate your comment - despite the tenor of this discussion at times, I feel that we ended up saving some fascinating information from being lost from the storehouse of human knowledge. -- 8^D^gab 15:56, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)
• I am extremely keen to hear Mel Etitis's evaluation of the page as rewritten - it's squarely in his area, and I will give great weight to whatever he has to say on this. -- 8^D^gab 05:37, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)
• Delete. One mention in one book does not a notable subject make. In addition to the coining, there would have to be some notable discussion of the movement or idea to make it encyclopedic. As it's clearly a fairly obvious compound, it's going to show up from time to time, so dribs and drabs of mentions here or there on the Internet don't really mean much. Demi ^T/_C 06:21, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)
  • So a 2-volume 1,432 page writing in 1833 (Anacalypsis, which can be purchased on Amazon.com) isn't sufficient offline evidence for establishing your so-called "notability"? (By the way, Godfrey Higgins is considered one of Christianity's most hated writers.) Should we forget about any and all esoteric knowledge? Perhaps we should simply ignore the finds of many archaeological digs too since many finds are "non-notable" according to your criteria. The very fact that there exists little information about a subject should prompt researchers and editors to inquire further and not simply dismiss the work of others on the subject. I'm tired of reading "delete" votes by editors who simply failed to consider this discussion in its entirety. RTFD. Adraeus 21:43, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    I hope that "F" stands for "fine". Assume good faith. We've had more than enough ridicule and acrimony on this page already. JRM · Talk 22:30, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)

    Posting "assume good faith" notices is directly contrary to the "assume good faith" notice since you're clearly assuming something other than good faith. Please, lectures are obnoxious. Assume good faith. Adraeus 22:53, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    Yes, I apologize. Your comment should have been left on its own. It was sufficient. More than sufficient. JRM · Talk 00:46, 2005 May 1 (UTC)

• Comment - Expanding on what Adraeus said: This subject is esoteric but there is information on it, if you know where to look. (Contrary to popular belief, not everything is available on the internet.) Godfrey Higgins' books are still being published today, over 150 years after they were first written. [9] That's pretty significant. - Pioneer-12 23:00, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - encyclopaedic, and for the reasons of Willmcw --Takver 12:11, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - I've had an enlightening e-mail exchange with the author of one of the above pandeism references. In order to avoid further lengthening of this vfd, I've posted it here, if anyone's interested. Cheers. --BD ^thimk 05:32, 2005 May 1 (UTC)
  • It looks like a promising line of investigation. Nice. And it's research the encyclopedia way: source-based research, not original research. This article, by it's mere existence, is helping to bring this topic out of confusion. Now all common views on pandeism can be observed and compared, from Higgins' original usage to the present day. Who knows, Britannica may be copying this article in a few years. - Pioneer-12 18:21, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I agree, but I still think that it was incorrect to characterize the old article as original research - I was faithfully relating a concept as it had been explained to me by an experienced professor, who presented it in the context of similar concepts. My "source" was the course. --BD ^thimk 18:56, 2005 May 1 (UTC)
      • Sorry, I did not mean to imply that the old article was "original research". I was just trying to say that the new additions are clearly based on source-based research. The old one was obviously made in good faith based on information obtained from a reputable and experienced researcher. Thus, I don't disbelieve any of the information in the original article. I think, if the topic was better known, no one else would have disbelieved it, either. By the way, I hope your professor has some sort of writing on the subject so we can cite him directly in the article. - Pioneer-12 04:53, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I appreciate that - and we'll know by Saturday, his book from the class is at my mother's house, which I'm visiting on Mother's Day. --BD ^thimk 04:57, 2005 May 3 (UTC)
• Suggestion - I find an eerie consonance between this article and the Flat Earth materials. If it is to be kept, then I think it must be brought up to scholarly, encyclopedic standards. There must be connections to non-esoteric, non-dogmatic descriptive materials that recognize "pandeism" as a real, coherent, usable concept. And if it really has wierd, esoteric roots in Higgins, then lay them out and make it clear where he is coming from. But don't pretend that he's a serious "historian of religions." Add a section about modern usage; but don't pretend that it's a mainline concept and that it has serious currency in scholarly debate. Make an article modelled on the Flat Earth one, and I'll be able to swallow it... Maybe... Otherwise, I say "Delete". Emyth 23:23, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Ironically, it turns out that Godfrey Higgins is a serious "historian of religions." Have a look at his (now well-sourced) article, and the Anacalypsis article. Turns out that both Kersey Graves' The World's 16 Crucified Saviours and Madame Blavatsky's The Secret Doctrine lean heavily on Higgins. I'm not sure how to answer your suggestion that the article should be "modelled on the Flat Earth one" - we know for a fact that the earth is not flat (even if some few people believe that it is), but we don't know that Higgins was wrong in his belief that a once-widely spread religion continued as a less-widely spread secret cult; or that those some few people who call themselves pandeists are empirically wrong in their beliefs, however they describe them. --BD ^thimk 00:04, 2005 May 2 (UTC)
• Delete. Good lord, what a debate. Refer users to WP:RFC as appropriate. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 03:05, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. — Dan | Talk 03:27, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Would anyone object if I removed the long, crossed-out section in the middle of this VfD? The entire thing is my own writing, and was a point-by-point defense of the content of the original article. However, none of the content of the original article remains, and the block of text is just taking up an unweildy chunk of space on this page. --BD ^thimk 03:35, 2005 May 3 (UTC)

That's called refactoring, which is unconventional; however, it is permissible. Adraeus 03:52, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. According to the Votes for Deletion Decision Policy, "The page will also remain if it has been improved enough since the initial listing that the reason for the listing no longer applies." User:Brian0918 posited that pandeism is "original research", "non-notable", and not assuming good faith, Brian0918 suggests that BD2412, a valuable and distinguished contributor to Wikipedia, "shoe-horned" pandeism to "create the appearance of legitimacy."

An extensive discussion and many inquiries about pandeism and its history has revealed that pandeism is not the result of so-called "original research" and that due to the esoteric nature of pandeism, its historical significance, and its influential and notable author Godfrey Higgins, pandeism is encyclopedic; thus, pandeism should remain included in Wikipedia. Moreover, the rewrite of the original article which includes citation demonstrates that BD2412 did not intend to "create the appearance of pandeism's legitimacy"; instead, BD2412 intended to positively contribute an article not previously covered by any Wikipedia editor.

The original reasons for deletion no longer apply.

May 3 is the end of this Vote for Deletion's five-day period. I urge those interested in keeping Wikipedia informational, rather than trivial, to VOTE FOR INCLUSION. Adraeus 03:52, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know if this is a neologism; but this user gave me this message:
  • Hi, I was wondering if you'd care to throw your two cents in on the official train wreck (mostly my fault, I'm afraid) called the Pandeism VfD? I'm keen to see it kept! --BD ^thimk 03:56, 2005 May 3 (UTC)
• He was trying to back me up on this article on VfD, and I think what he meant by 2 cents was an expression meaning to expand the article into realistic detail. --SuperDude 04:07, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Rhobite 04:27, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

Comment. Voting without specifying reason is practically useless and endangers the quality of justice in the deletion policy. Such "plain votes" should be relegated to mere opinions rather accepted as legitimate votes. Hopefully, the decision-making party has enough good sense to keep this article. Adraeus 05:54, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'd like to emphasize an aforementioned comment from another user: contrary to popular belief, especially on Wikipedia, you cannot learn everything on the Internet. If we limit ourselves to the irrational requirement, proposed by users such as User:Demi, that we include only information readily available on the Web, then we diminish the value that Wikipedia provides. Wikipedia is not and should not be restricted to exoteric information. If readers and editors alike wanted only to learn about popularized topics, Wikipedia would be a magazine instead of an encyclopedia. Adraeus 05:54, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your pointless comment is practically useless and endangers the quality of this VfD page. I don't have to specify a reason for my votes, thanks. The last thing I want to do is add another useless byte to this monstrosity of a page, just so I can get yelled at for having an "illegitimate" opinion. Rhobite 23:09, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

Uh, no. Adraeus 23:41, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, Merge, Redirect, changed my mind, thats a heck of an article, keep and expand, and good job BD2412. Sam Spade 06:07, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Well-researched, well-referenced and well-written article by a highly respected user who certainly knows the difference between an obscure term and a neologism. - Lucky 6.9 06:32, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(Removed query - belongs on the article's talk page) --BD ^thimk 22:44, 2005 May 3 (UTC)

• Keep. Encyclopaedic --Oldak Quill 22:56, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, I would of said delete for the previous article but the current version is encyclopaedic Falphin 00:59, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In order to clarify the above bedlam, here is my objective reading of the final tally of votes cast in this vfd. If I have misread any person's vote, please correct this. Because the article was rewritten and source verified as of 13:28, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC), and is now essentially a different article from the article that was originally nominated, the votes are separated by votes for the original article and votes for the current article:

Total votes based on current article (counting questionable votes as "Delete")

• Keep = 13
• Delete = 9 10 (incl. 1 contingent vote counted as Delete)
• No Vote = 1

Total combined votes based on original and current article (counting questionable votes as "Delete")

• Keep = 15
• Delete = 21 20 (incl. 2 contingent votes and one supporting a redirect counted as Delete)
• No Vote = 1

Votes cast based on the current article, after complete rewrite/source verification done as of 13:28, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC):

Keep:

1. Adraeus 00:32, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC), reaffirmed 23:46, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC) and 21:43, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
2. BD2412 11:42, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC) (reaffirming my vote to Keep as of this post)
3. dab 13:44, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
4. Pioneer-12 16:04, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC) (Strong Keep)
5. Tomer 17:42, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
6. Omegatron 18:22, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC) (Hesitant keep)
7. Klonimus 04:07, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
8. Willmcw 05:05, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
9. Takver 12:11, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
10. Lucky 6.9 06:32, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
11. Sam Spade 06:07, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
12. Oldak Quill 22:56, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
13. Falphin 00:59, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Delete:

1. brian0918 (reaffirmed earlier vote in vfd on 13:45, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC) )
2. Gmaxwell 21:35, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
3. Quale 04:18, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
4. Demi 06:21, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)
5. Trilobite 03:01, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
6. Fennec 03:05, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
7. Dan 03:27, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
8. Rhobite 04:27, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
9. Jayjig 17:31, 5 May 2005 (UTC) (reaffirmed earlier vote in vfd)

Conditional Delete

1. Emyth 23:23, May 1, 2005 (UTC) (contingent vote, would keep if structured like Flat Earth - but counted above as Delete)

No vote:

1. JRM 14:12, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)

Votes cast based on the original article, prior to complete rewrite/source verification done as of 13:28, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC):

Keep:

1. Pastinakel 00:38, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
2. Cyberjunkie 10:25, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete:

1. Luigi30 21:07, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
2. AngryParsley 21:07, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
3. Burgundavia 21:08, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
4. Kelly Martin 21:13, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
5. Postdlf 21:31, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
6. Mel Etitis 21:38, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
7. Megan1967 01:54, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
8. Angr 06:09, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
9. UtherSRG 11:29, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

Delete unless verified:

1. Mindspillage 21:08, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC) (don't know how this should count; current content is certainly "verified" - but counted above as Delete)

Support/No reason not to redirect:

1. SPUI 21:09, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC) (not sure how to read this! - but counted above as Delete)

---

So, does that mean "inconclusive; keep"? Tomer ^TALK 08:44, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

That's up to the person who closes the vote, but I'd say yes. No consensus. JRM · Talk 11:07, 2005 May 5 (UTC)

It depends, in part, whether the votes to delete the old "Pandeism" article (which was, concededly, unsourced and unverified) are counted as votes against the current pandeism article (which is really on a different topic altogether). But even then, some of the Delete votes are contingent (i.e. "delete unless X is done," or "article should only be kept if X is done"), so I think there are only 18 solid votes to delete (compared to 15 to keep), and 10 of those delete votes refer to the old article. --BD ^thimk 13:36, 2005 May 5 (UTC)

Note that exactly how many votes there are is irrelevant. Despite being called "votes for deletion", it's really about determining whether there is consensus for deletion. No matter what way you count it, there isn't. The number of people who want to keep this on good grounds is significant, so there is no consensus to delete. How many votes the article originally garnered is not significant either, because the current article is neither the same in content nor in topic. The only delete votes from there that would still be significant are the ones solely based on notability of any concept named "pandeism". This is as clear a no-consensus-keep vote as they come, especially since the article was rewritten. Those who feel the current article should be deleted should start a new VfD—but not for a while, of course. JRM · Talk 13:59, 2005 May 5 (UTC)

Ditto. Meanwhile, I see no reason to remove the ((cleanup)) just yet... Tomer ^TALK 14:05, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.